HAL Id: hal-03139443https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03139443
Submitted on 25 Feb 2021
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,émanant des établissements d’enseignement et derecherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoirespublics ou privés.
Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial| 4.0 InternationalLicense
Leadership Attitude of office Heads toward Employeesand Leadership Styles
Damianus Abun, Nimfa C.Catbagan, Theogenia Magallanes, Robert Rodrigo,Egdona A. Quinto
To cite this version:Damianus Abun, Nimfa C.Catbagan, Theogenia Magallanes, Robert Rodrigo, Egdona A. Quinto.Leadership Attitude of office Heads toward Employees and Leadership Styles. Technium Social ScienceJournal , Technium, 2021, Leadership Attitude of office Heads toward Employees and LeadershipStyles, 16 (1), pp.401-419. �hal-03139443�
A new decade for social changes
9 772668 779000
ISSN 2668-7798
www.techniumscience.com
Vol. 16, 2021
Leadership Attitude of office Heads toward Employees and
Leadership Styles
Damianus Abun1, Nimfa, C. Catbagan2, Theogenia Magallanes3, Robert
Rodrigo4, Egdona, A. Quinto5
1 2 4 5Divine Word College of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, Philippines, 3St. Benedict College of
Northern Luzon, Philippines
Abstract. The objective of the study was to investigate the effect of leadership attitude toward
employees and the leadership styles practiced by the office heads. To establish the theoretical
foundation of the study, related literature was reviewed. The study used a descriptive
correlational research design and the questionnaires were used to gather the data. Descriptive and
inferential statistics were used to interpret the data. Weighted mean was used to determine the
level of leadership attitude and leadership styles. Pearson r correlation was used to determine the
correlation between the leadership attitude and the leadership styles of office heads. As a whole,
the leadership attitude of office heads toward employees was high (4.18) and the leadership styles
were moderate (3.46). Overall, the study found that there is no correlation between leadership
attitude toward employees and leadership styles of office head and therefore the hypothesis of
the study is rejected.
Keywords. Leadership attitude, leadership styles, cognitive, affective, laissez-faire
I. Introduction
Leading people in an organization is not just about influencing or motivating people through
one’s skills or knowledge, though it is important, it is not everything. Talking about leadership
is not all about the strategy such as vision-mission, objectives, key result areas, performance
indicators and strategies, and courage to lead. Or it does not limit to action such as decision
making, communication, mobilizing others. It is also not limited to delivering the results which
require risk-taking, agility, and result focus (Barberry & Greaves, 2012). Though they are
needed leadership involves more than risk-taking, strategy, action, and result, it also involves
the right attitude toward the problems, the work, the organization, and the employees who are
working for the organization. Leaders’ attitude toward these things may influence the way how
he/she deals with them. Leaders can have both attitudes, positive and negative, and both
influence his/her behavior on how he/she will deal with the problems, the work, the
organization, and the employees.
The current study brings us back to the theory X and Y (McGregor (1960) and theory Z (Ouchi,
1981). The theories provides three different ways of how one leads or manages an organization.
The way how one leads and manages to depend on how one views or perceives his/her
employees ( Stanwick & Stanwick, 2020). On one hand, theory X views employees as lazy
401
Technium Social Sciences JournalVol. 16, 401-419, February, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798www.techniumscience.com
people, lack ambition, seeking security and economic need, and do not like work, and therefore
they must be coerced, controlled, directed, and threatened with punishment (McGregor, 1960).
On the other hand, theory Y looks at employees positively. This theory argues that work is just
natural and therefore workers will exercise self-direction and are committed to achieving the
objective (McGregor, 1960). In this case, the reward is a motivation for the employees to
achieve the objectives. On the contrary, theory Z sees that employees are self – motivated to do
their work and to achieve the objectives.
The three theories, X,Y (McGregor, 1960), and Z (Ouchi, 1980) bring a great implication
toward the way how leaders/managers lead and manage the organization and the employees.
On one hand, a leader who belongs to theory X will see employees negatively such as lazy, not
motivated and apply authoritarian leadership styles, and on the other hand, a leader who belongs
to theory Y will see employees positively such as willingness to work and have the capability
and consequently a leader uses the participative leadership styles. While leaders who belong to
the theory Z see employees as self-motivated, self-directed and therefore, the leaders are acting
as a "coach” and allow the workers make the most decisions. Leaders who belong to X and Y
would keep the power and authority to themselves. On contrary, leaders who belong to the
theory Z see power and authority as a result of trust for the employees. Trusting the employees
will result to trusting the leader. The power and authority comes from the workers’ trust.
Consequently, the managers/leaders allow the inputs of the workers in decision making (Abun,
2014).
Leadership styles are considered behavioral expressions of what they believe and what they
know about their employees (Jordan, 2016). Favorableness or unfavorable attitude toward
employees can have some effects on their leadership styles (Shahab, 2014). There have been no
studies yet on the relationship between leadership attitude toward employees and leadership
styles of leaders/manager and this is what we are going to investigate in the study. The output
of the study will be used to provide information for the heads of different departments so that
they know the effect of what they do on their employees.The study will contribute to the
exisiting literature on leadership particularly on the effect of attitude toward leadership style.
The study is divided into five parts. The first part is the introduction in which it discusses the
reason or rationale of the study and the purpose of the study. The second part is the review of
the related literature. This part discusses the theories of the study based on different opinions of
experts about leadership, attitude, and different leadership styles. The third part is a research
methodology that discusses the research design, locale of the study, the population of the study,
research procedures, research instruments, and statistical treatment of data. The fourth part is
empirical data and analysis which discusses and analyses the data gathered through
questionnaires. The fifth part is the result and discussion and conclusion.
II. Related Literature Review
The focus literature review is to find the ideas that have been presented in different books and
journal articles related to the current investigation (McCombes, 2019). In the review of related
literature, the researcher focuses on the literature that discusses the attitude and behavior and
different leadership styles which are the variables to be investigated in the current study.
Theoretical and Conceptual background
The Concept of Leadership
Bennis and Nanus (2007) recognize that there are so many definitions of leadership that have
been presented to the public and different authors present their understanding of leadership.
Often these definitions are conflicting with each other and finally no common stand on what
402
Technium Social Sciences JournalVol. 16, 401-419, February, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798www.techniumscience.com
leadership is and these definitions often time do not reflect the reality. Consequently, Wren
(1995) contended that as a result of these conflicting concepts of leadership, it leads to the
different focus of researchers in researching leadership. Some focused on personality, others
focus on traits or others focus on behavior. However, despite the conflicting issues on the
definition of leadership, Bennis (1959) define leadership as a process of influence in which the
leader induces followers to behave in a desired manner. But what is the purpose of influencing
followers to behave in a certain manner? This question leads to the essential characteristic of a
leader which is the vision. A leader has a vision and this serves as the direction where he/she
leads his/her people to and influences them to behave or to work in a particular way to achieve
the vision (Nanus, 1995).
In line with what is defined by Nanus(1995), that leadership is a step by step process to
implement a new sense of direction in the organization, Rauch and Behling (1984) define
leadership as a “process of influencing of an organized group toward accomplishing its goals”
(p.46). Similar to what Rauch and Behling (1984), Bass (1985), and Tichy and Devanna (1986)
viewed leadership as transforming followers and creating a vision, and define ways to the
followers on how to attain such vision. In other words, leaders are those who determine the
direction of the organization and they lead and move people and the organization where they
want to be (Tichy & Cohen, 2007). But Merton (1969) and Hogan and Curphy (1994) looked
at leadership in terms of interpersonal relationships. It is the power to build an interpersonal
relationship in which followers comply with the orders of leaders not because they have to but
because they want to follow.
Based on these definitions, then we have three important aspects of leadership such as
interpersonal relationships, influence, and goals. The term interpersonal means the relationship
between leader and followers are not functional and transactional but interpersonal. The leaders
treat followers as persons, not as objects and the relationship is subject to subject. Leaders
should be able to develop interpersonal relationships with their employees. While the term
influence means the power of the leader to affect others. This definition reflects the very essence
of leadership to affect change. Lastly is the term goal. The purpose of influencing others or
followers is to attain predetermined goals. There is no sense of leading if there is no direction
or goal to be achieved. Therefore, the definition we adopt in this study is the definition given
by Freiberg and Freil (1996) that leadership is a dynamic relationship between leader and
followers based on mutual influence and common purpose in which both move to a higher level
of motivation and moral development as they affect real, intended change.
Behavior explains the attitude
The concept of attitude has been confused with the concept of behavior. Often attitude refers to
behavior and behavior refers to attitude. Both are two different properties but related to each
other. In line with the topic of the study, investigating leadership attitude cannot proceed
without knowing the theory of attitude. Only after understanding what attitude means, then one
can understand the implication of such an attitude toward the behavior. The original inspiration
of the study is the attitude theory and the attitude-behavior relation of Ajzen (1993) and also
the theory of Allport about human Attitude and behavior. Understanding the attitude would
allow us to understand human behavior and in this case, we would understand why leaders have
different leadership styles even if they are within the same organization. Reading his work leads
me to investigate the attitude of leaders toward their employees and how their attitude affects
their leadership styles which are considered as a behavioral expression of their reactions toward
the employees. According to Ajzen (1993), attitude is an “individual disposition to react with a
certain degree of favorableness or unfavorableness to an object, behavior, person, institution or
403
Technium Social Sciences JournalVol. 16, 401-419, February, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798www.techniumscience.com
event or any other discriminable aspect of the individual's world" (Ajzen, 1993, p.41). This
individual disposition is a result of constant experience relating to that particular object or
situation. After a person has been exposed to those particular objects, events, this person can
form a certain attitude toward the object and such an attitude can be favorable or unfavorable
to that particular object or event. The person may have positive or good ideas about the object
or events and also he/she may have a negative idea about it depending on his/her experience.
According to the theory of attitude-behavior relation, this attitude will affect the behavior of the
person on what he/she will do next, though this idea had been challenged by Wicker (1969) that
there is little correlation between attitude and behavior. Also, Dean (1958) had a similar finding
with Wicker (1969) that there is no correlation between attitude and behavior when he studied
the attitude toward labor unions and actual participation in a labor union meeting. However,
Ajzen explains that such a result can be caused by other moderating variables such as self-
monitoring as he cited from Snyder and Swann (1976), need for recognition, the confidence
with which it is held, the circumstance surrounding the performance of the behavior. Align with
the theory of Ajzen is Allport (1935). Though the definition of Ajzen (1993) is somewhat
different from what Allport (1935) defined as the attitude there are similarities. Allport (1935)
defined attitude as “ a mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience,
exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon individual response to all objects and situations
with which it is related” (p.810). The definition of Allport is similar to what Jung (1971) that
attitude is the readiness of the mental or psychological state to react in a certain way. In my
view, the definition of Allport, Jung, and the definition of Ajzen are similar, though the terms
they use are different. These definitions are expressing the same point that attitude is an
individual disposition toward objects or external stimuli. They all agreed that attitude is
individual reactions or responses toward objects or events and these individual dispositions are
the product of experience. Therefore it is not just an automatic reaction or response but it is a
learned reaction of response. In other words, attitude is learned through direct experience with
the object or events. However, Bandura, et.al (1961) made it explicit that attitude may be
acquired not directly through direct experience but through observing others. Bandura took the
example of how children learn, that they learn through observing people around them which are
called models.
Based on Ajzen’s (1993) theory of attitude, there are three dimensions of attitude and these are
cognitive (knowledge), affective (feeling), and conative (behavioral aspect). Because of these
three dimensions, the study of attitude and behavior is a multidimensional construct, not a single
construct. Therefore, the investigation on the attitude-behavior relation must involve three
dimensions. The cognitive dimension of attitude involves beliefs, knowledge, or thoughts the
person has on the object of the attitude (McLeod, 2018). In short, it is the general knowledge of
the person toward a particular object or event, people, or an institution. This general knowledge
is acquired through experience whether is direct or indirect and a person can have positive or
negative ideas about the object or event they encountered. The concern here is how much does
a person knows about the object, event, person, or institution. The affective component refers
to the emotional reaction toward that particular object, event, person, or institution. One can
have a good feeling about the object, event, person, or institution, or a bad feeling depending
on the experience or exposure of that person toward the object. Lastly is a behavioral or conative
component of an attitude refers to the behavior of the person as a result of the feeling toward
such an object, event, person, or institution (McLeod, 2018).
404
Technium Social Sciences JournalVol. 16, 401-419, February, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798www.techniumscience.com
Leadership Attitude toward Employees
After we have discussed the concept of attitude and the concept of attitude-behavior relation,
then we know what we mean when we discussed leadership attitude toward employees.
Leadership attitude means the way how a leader looks or views the world around him or it is
about what he/she thoughts and feels about the situation around him. Assumptions, thoughts, or
views, and feelings can be both positive or good and negative or bad toward a particular object,
event, person, or institution. Leadership attitude toward employees means that it is what leaders
thought and feel about their employees. As we go back to the theory of attitude-behavior relation
of Ajzen (1993), leadership attitude toward employees would affect the way how he/she will
behave toward the employees he/she is leading. His assumptions, perception, thoughts, and
feelings affect the way how he/she treats the employees.
Leadership attitude toward employees is the same as pointed by McGregor (1960) and Ouchi
(1981). Now we look back to the theory X and Y of McGregor (1960) and theory Z of Ouchi
(1981). According to McGregor (1960) leaders can be classified into two assumptions about
employees which assumptions X and Assumption Y. On one hand, leaders who belong to X
would assume or think that employees dislike work, dislike responsibility, and always find ways
to avoid it. Consequently, this assumption or thought influences the leader or manager to apply
coercion and control, and therefore leadership style would-be authoritarian. On the other hand,
leaders who belong to Y would perceive or think that work is natural as play. Leaders who
belong to this category believe that control and punishment are not the right way to motivate
people to work. As long as they are motivated, they can direct their work. The concern of the
management is to see to it that employees are satisfied because they believe that job satisfaction
is a key factor to ensure employee commitment to work. This kind of leader will apply a
participative leadership style. While theory Z of Ouchi (1981) argues that employees are
innately self-motivated to work and they are loyal to the company and want to make the
company succeed. Leaders who have this kind of view would trust their employees to do their
job and leaders would be acting as coaches. Workers make the most decision and workers
themselves are the ones to solve their conflict, while the leader or managers act as arbitrators.
Managers/leaders who belong to this category allow the workers’ ideas in making decisions and
would focus on improving workers’ well-being. This kind of leader would apply a democratic
leadership style.
Leadership styles: authoritarian, participative, and delegative leadership
Leadership styles are the behavior of leaders dealing with their employees or followers. It is the
way how they influence their followers to follow them and to perform their job to achieve
organizational objectives. Porter- O’Grady (2003) as cited by Rodrigo (2012) defines leadership
as a “multifaceted process of identifying goal or target, motivating other people to act and
providing support and motivation to achieve a mutually negotiated goal” (para 2). From this
definition, one should know that leadership has the vision to be accomplished, and to
accomplish the vision, leaders use different approaches to support and motivate the followers
to achieve the goal. Thus, leaders would use different leadership styles or different behavior to
motivate their employees to carry out their job to achieve a common goal. This motivates many
researchers to conduct studies to determine what kind of effective leadership style to motivate
employees to work and to achieve the vision-mission and objectives. Early on, Lewin, et.al.
(1939) conducted a study to determine different leadership styles and as a result, they identified
three kinds of leadership behavior in deleing with their followers and they are authoritarian,
participative, and delegative styles (laissez-faire or free-rein). Greanleaf (1977) base on
his investigation, proposed a servant leadership style in which he proposed that leaders must
405
Technium Social Sciences JournalVol. 16, 401-419, February, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798www.techniumscience.com
focus more on others than upon the self. A leader should not be motivated by self-interest but
service to others. Conger and Kanungo (1988) propose a Charismatic leadership style in which
they contend that to motivate people to work, leaders must have idealized goals to achieve and
must have a strong personal commitment to achieving such a goal. They have to articulate this
vision to their followers and set a high-performance expectation and motivate followers to
achieve them. Burns (1978) develop transactional leadership. Burns suggested that leadership
is a two-way process in which he argued that leaders should provide rewards in return for the
subordinate’s effort and performance. Providing rewards would be one of motivating
employees to work smarter. The same person, Burns (1978) also proposed transformational
leadership styles to motivate employees to work. But the work was done by Bass and Avolio
(1996). Burns, Bass, and Avolio brought leadership to a higher level, to the level of morality.
The concern is still the same on how to motivate employees to work. In the first place, he argued
that a leader must be a role model for the employees particularly his values. Next is the
inspirational motivation that provides a challenging goal for the employees to achieve. Then
employees must be involved in discussing ideas on how to solve problems. Lastly is
individualized consideration, in the sense that leaders should not generalize employees and treat
them the same. Employees have different needs and want and problems and leadership should
give attention to the different needs of individual employees. Many more theories that we
cannot mention all here.
This study is not going to study all different leadership styles or leadership behavior. Based on
the experience and observing what is going on in the leadership styles of the head of Divine
Word Colleges in the Ilocos Region, the study focuses on authoritarian, participative, and
delegative (laissez-faire) leadership styles. These leadership styles were discovered earlier but
they may be still actual and relevant in the current context.
Authoritarian leadership style
This leadership style is also called an autocratic leadership style. This leadership style may be
appropriate under certain circumstances but it may not be the rule. This style is also often called
a dictatorial style. Autocratic leadership styles refer to leaders who provide the goal and
methods to achieve the goal, then impose the deadline. He/she makes the decision and does not
listen to the ideas coming from his/her employees (Cherry, 2019). Hard measures and close
monitoring are often applied and punishment is a consequence when the employees fail to
perform their works. This leadership style can work depending on the situation on the ground
and depending on the nature of the job.
Participative leadership style/Democratic Leadership Style.
After more than 30 years of research, Rensis Likert (1967) discovered different leadership
styles. The study was motivated by the desire to improve the workplace and how to motivate
employees to perform in their job. He discovered four types of leadership styles and they are
exploitative authoritative, benevolent authoritative, consultative, and participative styles. The
idea of participative leadership styles is that the goal cannot be achieved by the leader alone
without the participation of employees. This leadership style is marked by several practices
such as the leader and the group collectively makes the decisions (Collective participative
leadership) or, employees are invited to share ideas on the issue but at the end, it is the leader
who will make the decision (democratic leadership) or the leader listens to the ideas of
employees and then make the decision (autocratic participative leadership) or the leader allows
the group to make a decision which is often time done through votes and the majority prevails
(Janse, 2019)
406
Technium Social Sciences JournalVol. 16, 401-419, February, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798www.techniumscience.com
Delegative Leadership style/ laissez-faire leadership style
William Ouchi (1981) propose theory Z of leadership style which is based on the assumption
that workers are innately motivated to work and therefore let the employees do their job and the
role of a leader is only to be a coach. Delegative leadership style is similar to that theory.
Participative leadership styles allow the employees to exercise their authority to make decisions
and to direct their job and the leader is not intervening. The leader takes a backseat when
making a decision. This leadership style is also known as the laissez-faire (free-reign) leadership
style. Though this leadership style has been criticized as the cause of productivity but such style
may work in a particular situation (Cherry, 2019).
Conceptual Framework
Independent Variables Dependent Variables
Source: Ajzen (1993) and Likert (1967)
Figure 1: The framework reflects the main concept of the study. It portrays the relationship
between the independent variable (attitude toward employees) and the dependent variables
(leadership styles).
Statement of the Problem
The study is to determine the correlation between the leadership attitude toward employees and
the leadership styles applied by the head of offices in Divine Word Colleges in Ilocos Region,
particularly it seeks to answer the following questions:
1. What is the leadership attitude of the office head toward employees in terms of
a. Cognitive attitude,
b. Affective attitude?
2. What is the leadership styles of office head of Divine Word Colleges in the Ilocos
Region in terms of
a. Autocratic leadership style
b. Participative leadership style
c. Delegative leadership style
3. Is there a relationship between the leadership attitude toward employees and the
leadership styles of office heads of Divine Word Colleges in the Ilocos Region?
Leadership Attitude toward
Employees:
A. Cognitive Attitude :
Positive
B. Affective attitude:
Positive
Leadership Styles
Autocratic Leadership
Participative
leadership/Democratic style
Delegative Leadership/laissez-
faire style
407
Technium Social Sciences JournalVol. 16, 401-419, February, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798www.techniumscience.com
Assumption of the Study
The study assumes that leadership attitude influence leadership styles of office head of Divine
Word Colleges in Ilocos Region. It is also assumed that leadership attitude and leadership styles
are measurable.
Hypothesis
The theory of McGregor (1960) and Ouchi (1981) argue that leadership assumptions, leadership
thoughts, and feeling about employees lead toward a certain approach of leadership or
leadership style. Base on their idea, the current study hypothesizes that leadership attitude
toward employees may correlate to the leadership styles of office heads.
Delimitation of the Study
The study covers only to measure leadership attitude toward employees and leadership styles
of office head of Divine word Colleges in Ilocos Region. The study limits itself to measure
autocratic leadership, participative, and delegative leadership styles.
III. Research Methodology
As scientific research, it follows certain methodology in its investigation. The study was carried
out to find out the relationship between leadership attitude toward employees and leadership
styles of office heads of Divine Word Colleges in the Ilocos Region. In carrying out the study
proper research methodologies were followed particular research design, data gathering
instruments, population, the locale of the study, data gathering procedures, and statistical
treatment of data.
Research Design
The study used a descriptive assessment and correlational research design. Descriptive research
refers to a research method that describes the population or phenomena being studied. It tries to
answer the question of “what is" and not the "why question”( Bhat, 2019). It is also used to
describe profiles, frequency distribution, describe characteristics of people, situations,
phenomena, or relationship variables. In short, it describes “what is” about the data (Ariola,
2006). While descriptive correlational research is to describe the variables and to discover
relationships among variables and allow prediction of future events from present knowledge.
In line with the current study, the descriptive assessment and correlational method were
deployed. The study determines the level of cognitive and affective leadership attitude toward
employees and their correlation with the leadership styles of the office head. This was to
determine the dominant leadership attitude of office heads and how such leadership attitude
affects the leadership styles.
The locale of the Study
The locale of the study was the Divine Word College of Vigan. Divine Word College of Vigan
is belonged to the Province of Ilocos Sur and is located within the heritage city of Vigan. Divine
Word College of Vigan is run by the Congregation of the Divine Word Missionaries or known
as Society of the Divine Word or in Latin, Societas Verbi Divini (SVD).
Population
The population of the study was composed of all office heads of Divine Word Colleges in the
Ilocos region. Since the total numbers of office heads are limited and therefore total
enumeration is the sampling design of the study.
408
Technium Social Sciences JournalVol. 16, 401-419, February, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798www.techniumscience.com
Data Gathering instruments
The study utilized validated questionnaires. For the leadership styles, the questionnaires (LSQ)
were adapted from the work of Ntshingila (n.d) and for the leadership attitude, the
questionnaires were constructed by the author based on the concept of leadership attitude of
McGregor (1960) and Ouchi (1981) but validated through content validation and expert
judgment. The classification of the attitude which is cognitive, affective, and conative is based
on the concept of Ajzen (1993). On the leadership styles, questions number 1-6 are about
authoritarian leadership styles, number 7-13 is about participative leadership styles and 14-18
is about delegative leadership styles.
Data Gathering Procedures
In the process of data gathering, the researcher sent a letter to the President of the College,
requesting him to allow the researcher to flow his questionnaires in the college. The researcher
personally met the President and students and requested them to answer the questionnaires.
The retrieval of questionnaires was arranged between the President’s representative and the
researcher with the help of employees and faculty of the college.
Statistical Treatment of Data
In consistence with the study as a descriptive assessment and correlational research design,
therefore descriptive statistics and inferential statistics were used. The weighted mean is used
to determine the level of cognitive and affective leadership attitude of office heads toward
employees and leadership styles. The Pearson r was used to measure the correlation of
leadership attitudes toward employees and the leadership styles they apply in leading their
schools.
The following ranges of values with their descriptive interpretation will be used:
Statistical Range Descriptive Interpretation Overall Descriptive Rating
4.21-5.00 Strongly agree Very High
3.41-4.20 Agree High
2.61-3.40 Somewhat agree Moderate
1.81-2.60 Disagree Low/High
1.00-1.80 Strongly disagree Very Low/Very High
IV. Empirical data and Analysis
Empirical data and analysis indicate that a study is an evidenced-based approach and the
analysis is based on the data gathered through questionnaires or other kinds of research
instruments. The study relies on real-world data and not on theories and concepts from the books
without being supported by data (Tech Target, 2020). Based on this concept, this part presents
data and interprets the data gathered through questionnaires. The presentation has based the
arrangement of the statement of the problems.
Problem1: What is the leadership attitude of office head toward employees in terms of
a. Cognitive attitude
b. Affective attitude?
409
Technium Social Sciences JournalVol. 16, 401-419, February, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798www.techniumscience.com
Table 1: Cognitive Attitude n = 23
Statements
Composite
Mean
Descriptive
Interpretation
1. I know employees are capable of doing their
work 4.13 A/H
2. I know most employees have the skills to
perform their job 4.17 A/H
3. I know employees are willing to contribute
to the attainment of the goals 4.35 A/H
4. Given the right environment, employees
want to contribute ideas 4.17 A/H
5. I know employees are motivated to perform
their work 4.17 A/H
Composite Mean 4.20 A/H
Source: Ajzen (1993) and McGregor (1960) and Ouchi (1981)
Legend:
4.21-5.00 Strongly agree Very High
3.41-4.20 Agree High
2.61-3.40 Somewhat agree Moderate
1.81-2.60 Disagree Low/High
1.00-1.80 Strongly disagree Very Low/Very High
As reflected in the data presented in the table, it shows that as a whole, the leadership attitude
of office heads in terms of cognitive attitude gains a composite mean of 4.20 which is described
as “agree or high” (A/H). It just means that the leadership attitude of office heads toward
employees along with cognitive attitude is high but not very high and it is not also moderate,
low, or very low. Even when they are taken separately, the data reveals that all items are rated
within the same range of description which is "agree or high" such as they " know employees
are capable of doing their work (4.13) and have the skills to perform their job (4.17), are willing
to contribute to the attainment of the goals (4.35), motivated to perform their work (4.17) and
given the right environment, employees want to contribute ideas” (4.17).
This rating demonstrates that leadership has a high degree of general knowledge about who
their employees are. They know or believe that their employees are capable of performing their
job, and have the necessary skills to do their job, are motivated to carry out their duties and
responsibilities, and are willing to contribute ideas to help the organization. Harriss (2019)
contends that trusting and knowing employees your employees can enhance employee
engagement, increased productivity, and improve communication.
Table 2: Affective Attitude
Statements
Composite
Mean
Descriptive
Interpretation
1. I am happy that employees are doing their
job 4.13 A/H
2. I feel good because employees have the
skills to do their job 4.13 A/H
3. I am fortunate to work with employees who
are willing to contribute to the attainment of the goals 4.22 A/H
410
Technium Social Sciences JournalVol. 16, 401-419, February, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798www.techniumscience.com
4. I am just lucky to work with my employees
who are motivated to work 4.22 A/H
5. I am always energized to receive new ideas
from my employees 4.17 A/H
Composite Mean 4.17 A/H
Source: Source: Ajzen (1993) and McGregor (1960) and Ouchi (1981)
Legend:
4.21-5.00 Strongly agree Very High
3.41-4.20 Agree High
2.61-3.40 Somewhat agree Moderate
1.81-2.60 Disagree Low/High
1.00-1.80 Strongly disagree Very Low/Very High
As gleaned from the data, it shows that as a whole, the leadership attitude of office heads in
terms of affective attitude obtains a composite mean of 4.17 which is interpreted as "agree or
high" (A/H). Such rating demonstrates that the affective attitude of school heads toward
employees in terms of affective attitude is high but not very high and it is not also moderate,
low, or very low. Even if the items are taken singly, they all are rated within the same level of
interpretation which is "agree or high" such as they " are happy that employees are doing their
job (4.13), feeling good because employees have the skills to do their job (4.13), fortunate to
work with employees who are willing to contribute to the attainment of the goals (4.22), feel
lucky to work with employees who are motivated to work (4.22), and always energized to
receive new ideas from employees” (4.17).
The composite mean manifests that there is a high and positive emotion of office heads toward
the employees. The heads feel happy and energized because the employees are doing their job,
having the skills to do their job, willing to contribute ideas to the attainment of goals, and
motivated to work. The study of Rath (2004) published in Gallup business journal pointed out
the effect of positive leadership which includes enhanced job satisfaction, greater work
engagement, improved performance, and a more positive mood. This is also confirmed by the
study of Pastor (2014) on the effect of leadership emotional intelligence. The study found that
there is a correlation between the level of emotional intelligence of leaders and the professional
performance of subordinates (Pastor, 2014).
Table 3: Summary Table on Attitude n = 23
Attitude
Composite
Mean
Descriptive
Interpretation
Cognitive 4.20 A/H
Affective 4.17 A/H
Overall Mean 4.18 Source: Ntshingila (n.d)
Legend:
4.21-5.00 Strongly agree Very High
3.41-4.20 Agree High
2.61-3.40 Somewhat agree Moderate
411
Technium Social Sciences JournalVol. 16, 401-419, February, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798www.techniumscience.com
1.81-2.60 Disagree Low/High
1.00-1.80 Strongly disagree Very Low/Very High
The summary table shows that as a whole, the leadership attitude of office heads in terms of
cognitive and affective attitude gains a composite mean of 4.18 which is described as "agree or
high" (A/H). This concludes that the leadership attitude of office heads toward employees is
high but not very high, and it is also not moderate, low, or very low. Taking them separately,
both, cognitive and affective attitudes are perceived to be within the same interpretation which
is "agree or high'. This suggests that office heads have high ideas about their employees and
have a high and positive feeling toward their employees.
Problem 2: What is the leadership styles of office head of Divine Word Colleges in the Ilocos
Region in terms of
2.1. Autocratic leadership style
2.2. Participative leadership style
2.3. Delegative leadership style
Table 4: Authoritarian Style
Statements Mean
Descriptive
Interpretation
1. Supervise the employees closely, or they are not
likely to do their work 3.13 SWA/M
2. It is fair to say that most employees in the general
population are lazy 2.30 SWA/M
3. As a rule, employees must be given rewards or
punishment to motivate them to achieve
organizational objectives
3.48 SWA/M
4. Most employees feel insecure about their work and
need direction 2.96 SWA/M
5. The leader is the chief judge of the achievement of
the employees 3.17 SWA/M
6. Effective leaders give orders and clarify procedures 3.87
Composite Mean 3.15 SWA/M
Source: Ntshingila (n.d)
Legend:
Range of Mean Values Descriptive Interpretation
4.51 – 5.00 Strongly agree/Very High
3.51 – 4.50 Agree/High
2.51 – 3.50 Somewhat agree/Moderate extent
1.51 – 2.50 Disagree/Low
1.00 – 1.50 Strongly disagree/Very low
As gleaned from the data presented on the table, it appears that as a whole, the leadership style
of office heads along with authoritarian style obtains a composite mean of 3.15 which is
interpreted as “somewhat agree or moderate extent” (SWA/M). This composite mean points out
that the authoritarian leadership style of the office head is not very high or high and it is also
412
Technium Social Sciences JournalVol. 16, 401-419, February, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798www.techniumscience.com
not low or very low but to a moderate extent. This is also true when the items are taken
separately which almost all items fall within the same level of interpretation which is
“somewhat agree or moderate extent” such as “supervising the employees closely, or they are
not likely to do their work (3.13), employees must be given rewards or punishment to motivate
them to achieve organizational objectives (3.48), most employees feel insecure about their
work and need direction (2.96), the leader is the chief judge of the achievement of the employees
(3.17) and most employees in the general population are lazy (2.30).
The evaluation indicates that the office heads have a moderate level of authoritarian leadership
style. The effect of authoritarian leadership style on employees may vary. For example, the
study of Wang and Guan (2018) pointed out the positive effect of authoritarian leadership style
on employees' performance in Chinese companies but there is also a study that found no
correlation between authoritarian leadership style and performance because the subordinate of
authoritarian leaders is not likely to follow an authoritarian leader (Wang, et.al., 2019).
Table 5: Democratic/participative Style
Statements Mean
Descriptive
Interpretation
7. Leader wants to be part of the decision-making
process 4.26 A/H
8. Guiding without pressure is the key to being a good
leader 4.00 A/H
9. Leader wants frequent and supportive
communication with the workers 4.22 A/H
10. Leaders need to help subordinates accept
responsibility for completing their work 4.17 A/H
11. Leaders help subordinates find their “ passion” 3.74 A/H
12. Leader believes employees are competent and if
given a task will do a good job 3.83 A/H
13. Leaders should let subordinates work problems
out on their own 3.17 SWA/M
Composite Mean 3.85 Source: Ntshingila (n.d)
Legend:
Range of Mean Values Descriptive Interpretation
4.51 – 5.00 Strongly agree/Very High
3.51 – 4.50 Agree/High
2.51 – 3.50 Somewhat agree/Moderate Extent
1.51 – 2.50 Disagree/Low
1.00 – 1.50 Strongly disagree/Very Low
As pointed out in the data, it reveals that as a whole, the leadership style of office head along
with democratic style receives a composite mean of 3.85 which is described as “agree or High”
(A/H). This evaluation suggests that the participative leadership style of the office head is high
but not very high and it is also not moderate, low, or very low. Even when the items are taken
separately, it shows that all items are rated within the same level of interpretation which is
"agree or high" such as, " wanting the employees to be part of decision-making (4.26), guiding
413
Technium Social Sciences JournalVol. 16, 401-419, February, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798www.techniumscience.com
without pressure is the key to being a good leader (4.00), wanting frequent and supportive
communication with the workers (4.22), helping subordinates accept responsibility for
completing their work (4.17), helping subordinates find their “ passion”(4.74), believing
employees are competent and if given a task will do a good job (3.83), and letting the
subordinates work problems out on their own (3.17).
The finding indicates that the democratic leadership style of the office head is high. Such
democratic or participative leadership style can be seen in their effort to allow employees to
participate in decision making, guide the employees without pressure, build supportive
communication, help the employees to accomplish their task, help the employees to sustain their
passion, believe in the capability of employees to do their task and let the employee do their
task. Studies have pointed out the effect of democratic or participative leadership style. Dolly
and Nonyelum (2018) have studied the effect of democratic or participative leadership style on
the job performance of employees. The study found that participative or democratic leadership
style improves the job performance of employees.
Table 6: laissez-faire/delegative leadership
Statements Mean
Descriptive
Interpretation
14. Leadership requires staying out of the way of
subordinates as they do their work 3.09 SWA/M
15. As a rule, a leader should allow subordinates to
appraise their work 3.83 A/H
16. Leaders should give subordinates complete
freedom to solve problems on their own 3.61 A/H
17. In most situations, workers prefer little input from
the leader 3.17 SWA/M
18. In general, it is best to leave subordinates alone 2.78 SWA/M
Composite Mean 3.39 SWA/M
Source: Ntshingila (n.d)
Legend:
Range of Mean Values Descriptive Interpretation
4.51 – 5.00 Strongly agree
3.51 – 4.50 Agree
2.51 – 3.50 Somewhat agree
1.51 – 2.50 Disagree
1.00 – 1.50 Strongly disagree
As presented on the table, the data manifest that as a whole the leadership style of office heads
along with laissez-faire/delegative style obtains a composite mean of 3.39 which is described
as “somewhat agree or moderate extent (SWA/M). It just means that the leadership styles of
office heads in terms of laissez-faire/delegative style are not very high or high and it is also not
low or very low but to a moderate extent. However, when the items are taken separately, three
items were rated as somewhat agree or moderate extent such as, “leadership requires staying
out of the way of subordinates as they do their work (3.09), in most situations, workers prefer
little input from the leader (3.17), and in general, it is best to leave subordinates alone (2.78).
In this case, leaders’ agreement on the statements is moderate. In other words, leaders do not
414
Technium Social Sciences JournalVol. 16, 401-419, February, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798www.techniumscience.com
agree that they have to stay out of the way of subordinates' work and let employees do their
things. There were two items in which the office heads agree that “a leader should allow
subordinates to appraise their work (3.83), and leaders should give subordinates complete
freedom to solve problems on their own” (3.61).
The result of the composite mean of 3.39 which means "somewhat agree or moderate" indicates
that as a whole office heads do not agree or disagree with some practice of laissez-
faire/delegative style of leadership. Their agreement on this style is moderate. Asrar-ul-Haq and
Kuchinke (2016) pointed out in their study that laissez-faire leadership style showed a negative
relationship with employee performance in terms of effectiveness and performance.
Table 7: Summary Table on Leadership Styles
Leadership Style
Composite
Mean
Descriptive
Interpretation
Authoritarian 3.15 SWA/M
Participative/Democratic 3.85 A/H
Delegative/laissez-faire 3.39 SWA/M
Overall Mean 3.46 SWA/M
The summary table reveals that overall leadership style office heads obtain a composite mean
of 3.46 which is interpreted as "somewhat agree or moderate”(SWA/M). It just means that the
overall leadership style of office heads is not very high or high and it is not also low or very
low but to a moderate extent. But taken the leadership styles singly, it shows that authoritarian
style gained a composite mean of 3.15 and delegative/laissez-faire style obtained a composite
mean of 3.39 which are interpreted as “somewhat agree. In other words, the heads do not really
agree with the authoritarian and laisses-faire style, but they also do not disagree with the two
styles of leadership and their agreement on these two styles is moderate. It is only participative
or democratic leadership styles that the head of offices agree with (3.85).
From the finding, we can summarize that the office heads agree to practice the democratic
leadership style but there can be some situations they can practice authoritarian and laissez-
faire/delegative style of leadership.
Problem 3: Is there a relationship between the leadership attitude toward employees and the
leadership styles of office heads of Divine Word Colleges in the Ilocos Region?
Table 8: Coefficients of correlation on the Relationship Between Leadership attitude and
leadership styles
Leadership
Attitude
Pearson Correlation .018
Sig. (2-tailed) .933
N 23
Overall, there is no correlation between Leadership
Based on the Pearson r Correlation, it reveals that overall there is no correlation between
leadership attitude and leadership styles. But taking them singly, it shows that there is a
significant relationship at 0.05 level (2-tailed) between affective attitude and leadership style,
415
Technium Social Sciences JournalVol. 16, 401-419, February, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798www.techniumscience.com
particularly delegative/laissez-faire leadership style. There is a negative correlation of -.442*
which means an inverse relationship; as X increases, Y decreases; as X decreases, Y increases.
Negative correlation means
Table 9: Attitude and Different leadership tyles
Leadership Style Cognitive Affective
Authoritarian
Pearson Correlation .308 .047
Sig. (2-tailed) .153 .831
Participative
Pearson Correlation .253 .077
Sig. (2-tailed) .244 .727
Delegative
Pearson Correlation -.065 -.442*
Sig. (2-tailed) .768 .035
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
V. Result and Discussion
The purpose of the study was to determine the relationship between the leadership attitude of
office heads and their leadership styles. Based on the Pearson r Correlation, overall the study
found no correlation between leadership attitude and the leadership style of the office head. It
means that though the office heads know their employees either positive or negative, it does not
necessarily affect their leadership style. Based on the data, the highest composited mean was
obtained related to democratic leadership style which indicates that democratic leadership style
is being highly applied as their leadership style, while authoritarian style and delegative or
laissez-faire styles are moderately applied. It suggests that both leadership styles are applied
depending on the situation.
Issues on leadership are still relevant to be discussed because it affects employees performance.
Different leadership styles of managers impact the performance of employees. For example, the
study of Asrar-ul-Haq (2016) pointed out the correlation between transformational leadership
style and employee performance. Wang and Guan (2018) also found a positive correlation
between athoritarian leadership styles and employee performance, though the study of Wang,
et.al. (2019) found no correlation between authoritarian leadership and employee performance.
The difference was explained by the fact that employees who are under authoritarian leaders
are not likely to follow the authoritarian leader (wang, et.al. (2019). Dolly and Nonyelum (2018)
had also presented similar findings regarding the impact of democratic leadership and employee
performance. The study pointed out the democratic leadership style affects employees’
productivity. In the case of laissez-faire or delegative leadership style, it affects a certain degree
of role ambiguity and conflict, though it may not be significant (Al-Malki & Juan, 2018).
Applying the right kind of leadership will always be dependent on the situation. Thus,
leadership is always situational or contextual, or contingency model (Fieldler, 1967). This
theory argues that leadership does not exist in a vacuum but it is originated from the context
(Oc, 2018). In other words, a leader should examine the context first before he/she can adopt a
certain style of leadership. No leadership can be applied in all situations, though there can be
one leadership style to be dominant as the current study found.
416
Technium Social Sciences JournalVol. 16, 401-419, February, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798www.techniumscience.com
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of the leadership attitude of office heads
and their leadership style. The study found that overall, the leadership attitude of office heads
gained a composite mean of 4.18 which is described as "agree or high", and the leadership style
of heads gained a composite mean of 3.46 which is considered as "somewhat agree or moderate
level". When it comes to its correlation, the study found that overall, there is no correlation
between leadership attitude and leadership style. It just means that their attitude toward
employees does not affect their leadership style. This finding may contradict the early finding
of McGregor (1960) Ouchi (1981) about theory X and Y and Z of Ouchi (1981). Therefore, the
hypothesis of the study is rejected.
References
[1] Abun, D. (2004). Transformational Leadership Styles Deans of Selected Level III Accredited
Catholic Universities and Colleges in the Philippines: An Assessment. Unpublished
Dissertation. Makati: International Academy of Management and Economics.
[2] Ajzen, I. (1993). Attitude Theory and the Attitude-Behavior Relation. New York: Walter de
Gruyter.
[3] Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. M. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology.
Winchester, MA: Clark University Press
[4] Al-Malki, M. & Juan, W. (2018). Impact of Laissez-Faire Leadership on Role Ambiguity and
Role Conflict: Implications for Job Performance. International Journal of Innovation and
Economic Development, 4(1), 29-43.
[5] Ariola, M.M. (2006). Principles and Method of Research. Manila: Rex Book Store
[6] Asrar-ul-Haq, M. & Kuchinke, P. (2016). Impact of leadership styles on employees’ attitude
towards their leader and performance: Empirical evidence from Pakistani banks. Future
Business Journal, 2(1), 54-64.
[7] Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation
of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582
[8] Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1996). The Transformational Leadership and Transactional
Leadership of Men and women. London: Sage Publication
[9] Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
[10] Bennis, W. G. (1959). Leadership Theory and Administrative Behaviour: The Problem
of Authority. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 259-301.
[11] http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2390911
[12] Bennis, W.G. & Nanus, B. (2007). Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge. New York:
HarperCollins
[13] Bhat, A. (2019). Descriptive Research: Definition, Characteristics, methods,
Examples, and Advantages. Retrieved from https://www.questionpro.com/blog/descriptive-
research/
[14] Bradberry, T. & Geaves, J. (2012). Leadership 2.0. USA: Talent Smart.
[15] Cherry, K. (2019). Autocratic Leadership Style: Key Characteristics, Strengths, and
Weaknesses of Autocratic Leadership. Very Well Mind. Retrieved from
https://www.verywellmind.com
[16] Dean, L. R. (1958). Interaction reported and observed: The case of one local union.
Human Organization, 1958, 17, 36-44.
[17] Dolly, K.C. & Nonyelum, O.P. (2018). Impact of democratic Leadership Style on Job
Performance of Subordinates of Academic Libraries in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria.
417
Technium Social Sciences JournalVol. 16, 401-419, February, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798www.techniumscience.com
International Journal of Research- Granthaalayah, 6(10). DOI:
10.29121/granthaalayah.v6.i10.2018.1190
[18] Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[19] Freiberg, K. & Freil, J. (l996) Nuts! Southwest Airlines' Crazy Recipe for Business &
Personal Success. NY: NY Broadway Books.
[20] Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant Leadership. New York: Paulist Press.
[21] Harriss, L. (2019). Six reasons it pays to trust your employees. CIPHR. Retrieved
from https://www.ciphr.com
[22] Janse, B. (2019). Participative Leadership. Retrieved from toolshero:
https://www.toolshero.com/leadership/participative-leadership-style/
[23] Jorda, S.R. (2016). Positive Leadership Behavior. Global Encyclopedia of Public
Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
[24] Jung, C.G., (1971). Psychological Types. In Collected Works. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
[25] Kanungo, R.N. & Conger, J.A. (1989). Dimensions of Executive Charisma.
Perspective, Vol. 14, No.4, October-December, 1989
[26] Lewin, K.; Lippitt, R.; White, R.K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in
experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology 10: 271–301
[27] Likert, R.L. (1967), New Patterns of Management, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York, NY
[28] McCombes, S. (2019). How to Write a Literature Review. Scibbr. Retrieved from
https://www.scribbr.com
[29] McGregor, D. (1960), The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.
[30] McLeod, S. A. (2018, May 21). Attitudes and behavior. Simply psychology:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/attitudes.html
[31] Nanus, B. (1995). Visionary Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, W. G. & Nanus,
B. (2007). Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: HarperCollins.
[32] Ntshingila, S. (n.d). Leadership Styles Questionnaire. Retrieved from
https://www.sagepub.com
[33] Oc, B. (2018). Contextual Leadership: A Systematic Review of How Contextual
Factors Shape Leadership and Its Outcome. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 218-235.
[34] Ouchi, W.G. (1981). Theory Z: How Americans Business can Meet the Japanese
Challenge. USA: Avon
[35] Pastor, I. (2014). Leadership and emotional intelligence: the effect on performance and
attitude. Procedia Economics and Finance 15, 985 – 992.
[36] Porter-O’Grady, T. (2003) A different age for leadership, part 1. Journal of Nursing
Administration; 33(10), 105-110.
[37] Rodrigo (2012). Leadership and Influencing Practice. The Write Pass Journal.
Retrieved from https://writepass.com/journal/
[38] Rath, T. (2004). The Impact of Positive Leadership. Gallup Business Journal. Retried
from https://news.gallup.com.
[39] Rauch, C. F., & Behling, O. (1984). Functionalism: Basis for an alternate approach to
the study of leadership. In J. G. Hunt, D. M. Hosking, C. A. Schriesheim, & R. Stewart (Eds.),
Leaders and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior and leadership (pp.
45-62). New York: Pergamum Press.
418
Technium Social Sciences JournalVol. 16, 401-419, February, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798www.techniumscience.com
[40] Shahab, M.A. (2014). The Influence of Leadership and Work Attitudes toward Job
Satisfaction and Performance of Employee. International Journal of Managerial Studies and
Research, 2(5), 69-77.
[41] Snyder, M., & Swann, W.B. (1976). When Actions Reflect Attitude: The Politics of
Impression Management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1034-1042.
[42] Stanwick, P. & Stanwick, S. (2020). International Management: A Stakeholder
Approach. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
[43] Tech Target (2020). Empirical Analysis. Retrieved from https://whatis.techtarget.com.
[44] Tichy, N.M. & Cohen, E. (2007). The Leadership Engine. New York: Harper
[45] Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986a). The transformational leader. New York:
John Wiley and Sons
[46] Wang, Z., Liu, Y. & Liu, S. (2019). Authoritarian leadership and task performance:
the effects of leader-member exchange and dependence on leader. Frontiers of Business
Research in China, 13(19).
[47] Wicker, A.W. (1969) Attitude Versus Action: The relationship between Verbal and
Overt Behavioral Responses to Attitude Objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 41-78.
[48] Wren, J.Th. (1995). Leaders’ Companion. New York: The Free Press.
[49] Wuang, H., & Guan, B. (2018). The Positive Effect of Authoritarian Leadership on
Employee Performance: The Moderating Role of Power Distance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00357
419
Technium Social Sciences JournalVol. 16, 401-419, February, 2021
ISSN: 2668-7798www.techniumscience.com